Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review 'methods', and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The KTA research program is a two-year project designed to develop and assess the impact of a regional knowledge infrastructure that supports evidence-informed decision making by regional managers and stakeholders. As part of this program, we have developed evidence summaries - our form of rapid review - which have come to be a flagship component of this project. Our eight-step approach for producing evidence summaries has been developed iteratively, based on evidence (where available), experience and knowledge user feedback. The aim of our evidence summary approach is to deliver quality evidence that is both timely and user-friendly.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From November 2009 to March 2011 we have produced 11 evidence summaries on a diverse range of questions identified by our knowledge users. Topic areas have included questions of clinical effectiveness to questions on health systems and/or health services. Knowledge users have reported evidence summaries to be of high value in informing their decisions and initiatives. We continue to experiment with incorporating more of the established methods of systematic reviews, while maintaining our capacity to deliver a final product in a timely manner.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The evolution of the KTA rapid review evidence summaries has been a positive one. We have developed an approach that appears to be addressing a need by knowledge users for timely, user-friendly, and trustworthy evidence and have transparently reported these methods here for the wider rapid review and scientific community.</p

Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin monotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight, so initial treatment is aimed at reducing weight and increasing physical activity. Even modest weight loss can improve control of blood glucose. If drug treatment is necessary, the drug of first choice is metformin. However, some people cannot tolerate metformin, which causes diarrhoea in about 10%, and it cannot be used in people with renal impairment. This review appraises three of the newest class of drugs for monotherapy when metformin cannot be used, the sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Objective: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Luton, UK), canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen, High Wycombe, UK) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Merck & Co., Darmstadt, Germany), in monotherapy in people who cannot take metformin. Sources: MEDLINE (1946 to February 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015) for randomised controlled trials lasting 24 weeks or more. For adverse events, a wider range of studies was used. Three manufacturers provided submissions. Methods: Systematic review and economic evaluation. A network meta-analysis was carried out involving the three SGLT2 inhibitors and key comparators. Critical appraisal of submissions from three manufacturers. Results: We included three trials of dapagliflozin and two each for canagliflozin and empagliflozin. The trials were of good quality. The canagliflozin and dapagliflozin trials compared them with placebo, but the two empagliflozin trials included active comparators. All three drugs were shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control, promoting weight loss and lowering blood pressure (BP). Limitations: There were no head-to-head trials of the different flozins, and no long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes in this group of patients. Most trials were against placebo. The trials were done in patient groups that were not always comparable, for example in baseline glycated haemoglobin or body mass index. Data on elderly patients were lacking. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin are effective in improving glycaemic control, with added benefits of some reductions in BP and weight. Adverse effects are urinary and genital tract infections in a small proportion of users. In monotherapy, the three drugs do not appear cost-effective compared with gliclazide or pioglitazone, but may be competitive against sitagliptin (Januvia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX). DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs. METHODS: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX. CONCLUSIONS: bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission). STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care:a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Presenting symptoms that can be associated with CRC usually have another explanation. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye and may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from further investigation.Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of FITs [OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co./MAST Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan), HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex/Alpha Laboratories Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), FOB Gold (Sentinel/Sysmex, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy), RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany)] for primary care triage of people with low-risk symptoms.Methods: Twenty-four resources were searched to March 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that were associated with different faecal occult blood tests and direct colonoscopy referral. Modelling comprised a diagnostic decision model, a Markov model for long-term costs and QALYs that were associated with CRC treatment and progression, and a Markov model for QALYs that were associated with no CRC.Results: We included 10 studies. Using a single sample and 10 aeg Hb/g faeces threshold, sensitivity estimates for OC-Sensor [92.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.9% to 95.3%] and HM-JACKarc (100%, 95% CI 71.5% to 100%) indicated that both may be useful to rule out CRC. Specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3% to 91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%). Triage using FITs could rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in approximately 75% of symptomatic patients. Data from our systematic review suggest that 22.5-93% of patients with a positive FIT and no CRC have other significant bowel pathologies. The results of the base-case analysis suggested minimal difference in QALYs between all of the strategies; no triage (referral straight to colonoscopy) is the most expensive. Faecal immunochemical testing was cost-effective (cheaper and more, or only slightly less, effective) compared with no triage. Faecal immunochemical testing was more effective and costly than guaiac faecal occult blood testing, but remained cost-effective at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 30,000. The results of scenario analyses did not differ substantively from the base-case. Results were better for faecal immunochemical testing when accuracy of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was based on studies that were more representative of the correct population.Limitations: Only one included study evaluated faecal immunochemical testing in primary care; however, all of the other studies evaluated faecal immunochemical testing at the point of referral. Further, validation data for the Faecal haemoglobin, Age and Sex Test (FAST) score, which includes faecal immunochemical testing, showed no significant difference in performance between primary and secondary care. There were insufficient data to adequately assess FOB Gold, RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex. No study compared FIT assays, or FIT assays versus gFOBT; all of the data included in this assessment refer to the clinical effectiveness of individual FIT methods and not their comparative effectiveness.Conclusions: Faecal immunochemical testing is likely to be a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for triaging people who are presenting, in primary care settings, with lower abdominal symptoms and who are at low risk for CRC. Further research is required to confirm the effectiveness of faecal immunochemical testing in primary care practice and to compare the performance of different FIT assays.</p